Re: Mini-ITX PC's a the future of HA (was Re: X-10 Mister House Motion sensor problems)

["Robert L Bass" <robertlbass@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> HomeSeer *could* have looked at the Elks and Omnis of the world and
> created
> a panel that handled not only security, but lots of routine automation
> tasks
> as well.  After all, if panels are better suited to security because they
> are more reliable, then wouldn't that same sort of reliability be good for
> home automtion too?  HS, then, would seem to be taking an unreliable
> course.
> But we both know that's not the case.

Agreed.  They are a software developer -- not a hardware manufacturer.  They
realize, as I'm sure you also do, that there is a market for PC-centric,
software based automation systems, another market for hardware-only systems
and yet another for hybrid, PC + dedicated panel HA solutions.

HomeSeer was born a software program that interfaced with the Napco Gemini
P9600 security system.  Rich said at the time that his goal was to develop
an app that would add features to a panel-based alarm system.  He chose the
P9600 because it had a reasonably easy to manage (if poorly documented)
serial interface which allowed 2-way communication and control.

This isn't a guess on my part.  We discussed the issues at length at the
time because I provided HS with hardware and tech support on the Napco
system.  HS has followed their initial business plan all along, developing
in-house and 3rd party plug-ins for a number of different panels and
ancillary systems -- lighting, HVAC, irrigation, etc.  They have offered
fully loaded HA servers in the past.  I'm sure they'll contimue to test the
waters with various PC platforms but I doubt they'll come out with a
hardware panel any time soon.

> What's really happening is that the years of proprietary
> panel protocols, inability to access networks, inability
> to interface with home automation and AV gear and
> lots of other issues have put the mark of death on
> panels...

As a genre?  If that is what you mean, I disagree.  Some panels will
certainly fall by the wayside.  Some already have.  Others will contimue to
evolve and prosper.

> Vendor's panels (let's take Omni because I own their
> gear) have been steadily "growing" in size and
> complexity and add-on modules to account for these
> shortcomings.  I claim it's an unsustainable task in the
> long run because competitors can enter the market
> using a mini PC as their foundation HW and have both
> a cheaper and superior product as a result...

If the system isn't mission critical, that is true.  However, if the job
includes physical security (access control), electronic security (burglar
alarm) and/or life safety (fire alarm, medical alert, etc.), there will
continue to be a growing need for dedicated hardware panels which will
function for many hours during power outages, won't hang because the latest
upgrade to Acrobat uses up 99.997% of the CPU time (argghhh!), etc.

> A more powerful CPU gives you lots of options a
> panel can't.  Lots.

That is true.  HS offers a hybrid solution which allows one to take
advantage of the PC's flexibility and power as well as a solid panel's
reliability and load handling.  IMO that's the best of both worlds.  I like
HS but from what I've learned so far, CQC might be a better choice for my
own next project.  Whichever I choose, it'll have to work with the ELK-M1G
panel.  If Dean would give me the courtesy of a reply the choice would be
easier. (hint)

> No one building a custom board can possibly compete with the horsepower
> and
> flexibility of the modern PC, particularly as embodied in Via's mini-ITX.
> That means Elk's competition can produce a PC-based alarm and HA system
> for
> the cost of designing some interface peripherals and some software.  The
> expensive custom board design and manufacture drops out of the equation.

True, but not many PC's can connect, monitor and control over 200 inputs and
outputs, run for a couple of days without 110VAC after a storm, and pass
muster with the local building inspector as a fire alarm control panel.
Your points are well taken but they don't make PC'based systems a complete
*replacement* for panel based systems.  There is and IMO will continue to be
a strong market for both.  At present, panel based systems own the major
portion of the market.  How much of that they will give up to PC-based
systems over the coming years is anybody's guess.  My bet is the two will
merge somewhat as panel makers start to incorporate PC-like architecture.
Only time will tell, eh?

> ... Just as security panels grew PC-like parts, I predict
> HomeSeer *will* be producing other, specialized
> hardwire like sensor interfaces that would remove a lot
> of the incentive to buy an Elk or Omni...

Some developers might, but I don't think Rich has the wherewithall or the
inclination to do it.  We haven't discussed this in some time so I can't say
for certain.

> For security, as Bob B. pointed out, hardwired panels
> still have some advantages.  They don't depend on MS
> for underlying OS, for one thing.  PCs have become
> incredibly robust over the last 20 years because they
> have been constantly refined.  Yet because they have
> been running MS software, they've taken the rap for
> being unreliable and needing burping and booting every
> day.

Interesting aside -- While working with Edwards a few years ago on the
development of their then-next (does that make sense?) series of fire alarm
control panels, I saw the inclusion of some very PC-like functionality in
the panel.  I'm not able to disclose exactly what but the innards reminded
me of an older style computer I've worked with years ago.

> ... they made "panel v. PC" decision a long time
> ago and it's only with the arrival of the highly
> reliable, fanless and very small ITX that they
> could finally realize that choice in a HW product.

Yep and yep again.

> Year after year, more and more "modules" are being
> added to these proprietary panels and they get more
> complex (and thus inherently less reliable) and more
> expensive as a result.  They are trying to communicate
> like PCs and be as "smart" as PC's but they can't get
> there from where they are and never will.  PC's are
> developing too quickly to ever be "caught up with" by
> a custom panel...

Perhaps, but I view it differently.  IMO PC-based systems still need to
catch up to panels in may ways.

> The "whole house" PC is coming, and it's going to drive
> panels into the museums.  People want event logs - panels
> stink at that....

The Napco P9600 does logs quite well.

> People want networking and web-enabling and USB
> and audio and video and lots of other things that are
> all there on a PC but quite a bit more expensive in the
> "panel centric" world.

ELK already does all ove the above except video and that's coming as well.

>> OTOH, a panel is a hugely simpler product, and
>> simpler (as a rule) means less likely to break.
>
> I think that's an outdated assumption for two reasons.
>  Every time I look, Omni's adding something to its
> boards, as are the others.  They *have* to in order to
> keep up with the expanding universe of home automation...

Most panel based systems offer *optional* add-ons to interface with new
hardware.  That makes for a more complex shelf at the vendor but doesn't
necessarily comlicate the individual installations.  For example, ELK
currently supports a fair number of lighting protocols but a given
installation only uses one or two (perhaps X10 + Z-Wave).  One particular
site isn't going to be loaded down with apparati for X10, Z-Wave, USB,
CentraLite AND whatever else.

> PC MTBF varies so radically between MS and
> Unix that it becomes readily apparent that a lot
> of the "unreliability" of PC's lies at the feet of
> Windows, not the hardware...

No argument here.  :^)

> For that reason at least some believe that HomeSeer
> made the wrong choice in going with Windows, and
> not Unix.  I tend to agree...

HS made a market decision (plus, IIRC Rich is an MSD).  There are many fold
more potential customers with PC's running MS than Unix.  Regardless how
flawed it may be, MS owns the vast majority of the market and any developer
who wants to sell a SW product to DIYers has to give significant weight to
that fact.  That is what Rich did and he was right -- not because MS is not
problematic but because marketing a Unix-only SW product to a limited
audience is financially problematic.

> MS has not demonstrated that it can create a reliable
> operating system suitable for "appliances" let alone
> critical black-box functions...

True indeed.  What they have demonstrated is the ability to own the
marketplace.  Their tactics have been questionable at best but they do own
it.  If you want to make a good living selling a SW based product you have
to make some hard decisions about that.

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
941-866-1100 Sales & Tech Support
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>